alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1331-E1332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        HONORING THE LEADERSHIP ALLIANCE ON ITS 20TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO.

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 25, 2012

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, today I commemorate the 20th anniversary of 
the Leadership Alliance. The Leadership Alliance, established in 1992, 
is a national academic consortium of leading research universities and 
minority serving institutions with the mission to develop 
underrepresented students into outstanding leaders and role models in 
academia, business, and the public sector.
  Through an organized program of research, networking and mentorship 
at various critical transitions alont the entire academic training 
pathway, the Leadership Alliance prepares young scientists and scholars 
from underrepresented and underserved populations for

[[Page E1332]]

graduate training and professional apprenticeships. Leadership Alliance 
faculty mentors provide high quality, cutting-edge research experiences 
in all academic disciplines at the nation's most competitive graduate 
training institutions and share insights into the nature of academic 
careers.
  Chaminade University, located in Honolulu, Oahu, has been a member 
institution of the Leadership Alliance since 2007. In the past five 
years, 16 students have participated in the Summer Research Early 
Identification Program--performing research at Brown, Harvard, Tufts, 
Yale, and other universities.
  Nearly 70 percent of Leadership Alliance early identification 
students enroll into a graduate level program and, of that 70 percent, 
25 percent enroll into PhD programs. Chaminade students have had 
transformative summer research experiences, encouraging their pursuit 
of graduate degrees, particularly in the fields of science, technology, 
engineering, and math (STEM).
  One Chaminade student, Natasha Flores, was able to do research at 
Yale University. Since graduating, she has conducted cancer research at 
the National Cancer Institute and has just completed her second year in 
a Cancer Biology Ph.D. Program at Stanford University. Joseph 
Tillotson, a 2011 Chaminade graduate, completed two summers of research 
through the Leadership Alliance and will be beginning Ph.D. studies in 
Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arizona this fall.
  Leadership Alliance Doctoral Scholars are diversifying the academy at 
research-intensive institutions and are engaging in career positions in 
government and industry.
  Congratulations to the Leadership Alliance on two decades of 
committed service to supporting a diverse and competitive research and 
scholarly workforce in the United States.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1530
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) at 3 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.

                          ____________________
```
# All in one

# Reference
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **20 13**  **- 0399**  Docket Number

**20 11**  **- SW**  **- 064**  **- AD**  Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter Al ert Service Bulletin No. 67A007, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009 Eurocopter ASB No. 67.00.10, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009 Eurocopter ASB No. 67.05, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Offi ce of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137
**DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
# C_2009113EN.01001502.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/15

---

Order of the Court of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Bild digital GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Bild.T-Online.de AG & Co. KG (C-39/08), ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH (C-43/08) v Präsident des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts

(Joined Cases C-39/08 and C-43/08) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 103(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/104/EEC - Applications for registration of trade marks - Examination on a case-by-case basis - Failure to take account of earlier decisions - Manifest inadmissibility)

2009/C 113/30

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht (Germany)

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Bild digital GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Bild.T-Online.de AG & Co. KG (C 39/08), ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH (C 43/08)

Applicants:

Defendant: Präsident des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Examination of applications for registration of trade marks on a case-by-case basis without account being taken of earlier decisions in similar situations — Refusal to register a trade mark applied for by the proprietor of a series of similar marks

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The competent authority of a Member State required to rule on an application for registration of a trade mark is not required to disregard the grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by Council Decision 92/10/EEC of 19 December 1991, and to grant that application on the ground that the sign for which registration as a trade mark is sought is composed in a manner identical or comparable to a sign which it has already accepted for registration as a trade mark and which refers to identical or similar goods or services.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
November 20, 1996

19022

#### State v. Kalama

Order No. 96-29

Affirmed
# C_2020320EN.01002301.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 26 de Barcelona — Spain) — LJ v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-861/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00085-CV

Texas Department of Public Safety

v.

Jesse Elizarde

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 1 of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-CCL-791

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERED. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 19, 2015
# C_2008022EN.01004503.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/45

---

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representation of a hand holding a card plus three triangles)

(Case T-414/07)

(2008/C 22/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Européene de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by P. Greffe and M. Chaminade, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 in Case R 290/2007-1, in so far as it refused the registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 in Case R 290/2007-1, in so far as it refused the registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42;

| — | registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of all the goods and services claimed. |
| --- | --- |

—

registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising a representation of a hand holding a card followed by three black triangles for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42 (Application No 5 225 776)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant states that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, the elements comprising the trade mark, the registration of which was partially refused, are distinctive and arbitrary in respect of the goods and services claimed and, consequently, their combination must be also considered to be distinctive and arbitrary.

Pleas in law:

---
24548

#### State v. Dietzman

Affirmed
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0637 

Filed April 5, 2017

FRANKLIN LEE HARRIS,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark E. 

Kruse, District Associate Judge.

Franklin Harris appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment on his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

William R. Monroe of Law Office of William Monroe, Burlington, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, Judge.

We must decide whether a postconviction relief application is time-barred.

I. Background Proceedings

In 2008, Franklin Harris pled guilty to second-degree murder in connection 

with the stabbing death of his girlfriend. His direct appeal was dismissed as 

frivolous, and procedendo issued in 2008. 

Harris filed his first application for postconviction relief shortly thereafter. 

The district court denied the application, and this court affirmed the ruling. See 

Harris v. State, No. 10-2035, 2013 WL 5758164, at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 23, 

2013).

Harris filed his second application for postconviction relief in 2014. The 

State moved for summary disposition asserting, in part, that the application was 

time-barred. The district court granted the motion. This appeal followed. 

II. Time-Bar

Postconviction relief applications must be filed “within three years from the 

date the conviction or decision is final or, in the event of an appeal, from the date 

the writ of procedendo is issued.” Iowa Code § 822.3 (2014). “[T]his limitation 

does not apply to a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within 

the applicable time period.” Id. § 822.3. Harris concedes his application fell 

outside the three-year period but argues he raised a ground of fact that could not 

have been raised within that period. He relies on a medical report that he claims 

not to have seen until years after he was imprisoned. However, his resistance to 

the State’s motion for summary disposition failed to refute the State’s affirmative 

assertion that the medical report was “handed over to the Petitioner’s original 
3

defense attorney on February 25th, 2008” and “the Petitioner has been in 

possession of this document for seven years.” Production of documents to a 

person’s attorney is sufficient to place the person on notice of those documents. 

See, e.g., Rhode v. State, No. 02-2003, 2004 WL 151713, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. 

Jan. 28, 2004) (rejecting applicant’s claim as time-barred where the challenged 

evidence “was available at trial and certainly before the . . . running of the statute 

of limitations”).

We conclude Harris’s second postconviction relief application was timebarred, and the ground-of-fact exception to the time bar is inapplicable. The 

district court did not err in granting the State’s motion for summary disposition of 

the application.

AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00107-CV

City of Weslaco

v.

Keith C. Livesay

On appeal from the

92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-0435-13-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 19, 2016
UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY_____77WESTJACKSONBOULEVARD%CHICAGO,IL60604-35904Lg’poREPLYTOTHEATTENTIONOF:D-8JTornSieger,DirectorBureauofEnvironmenta]&OccupationalHealthStateofWisconsinDepartmentofHealth&FanillyServicesV1WestWilsonStreet,Room137Madison,WI53703VVDearMr.Sieger:TheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Region5,PesticidesandToxicsBranchapprovedtheQualityManagementPlan(QMP)fortheWisconsinDepartmentofHealth&FamilyServices’Lead-BasedPaintActivitiesProgramonOctober6,2005.ThisQMPapprovalisapplicableonlytotheabovementionedprogramaudwillceaseinfiveyears.TheQMPdocumentmustb.reviewedatleastannuallyoratsomeothermutuallyagreeableintervaltoreflectanyupdatesornewrules/programactivities.TheorginaiQMPsignaturepageisincludedforyourrecords.ThankyouforthepositiveeffortsputforthincompletionoftheQMP.PleasefeelfreetodiscussanyissuesrelatedtdthisprogramwithMarlyseWiebenga,ProjectOfficerat(312)886-4437,orwithLarisaLeonova,QACoordinatorat(312)353-5838.Waste,PesticidesandToxicsDivisionEnclosureSincerely,RecycledlRecyclable.PrintedwithVegetableOilBasedInkson100%RecycledPaper(50%Postconsumer)Approval

page

for signatures

©IIFJ OCT

0

6 2005 STATE

of WISCONSIN Department

of Health

& Family SerViCeESTIC)DES

& TOXICS BRANCH Division

of Public

Health

Waste Pesticides

& Toxics Division Bureau

of Environmental

& Occupational

Healtt4 5

EPA- REGION

5 Asbestos

and Lead Section Quality Management

Plan for Environmental

Lead

Data

for Lead-Based

Paint Activities For

the State: Tom Sieger,

Director Bureau

of Environmental

& Occupational

Health I •&L Shelley Bruce,upervisor,

Asbestos

and Lead Section For EPA Region

5: joDirec t or, Waste Pesticides

and Toxics Division,

Region

5 Larisa Leonova,

QA Mtger,

P Waste, Pesticides

and Toxics Division,

Region

5-

/O//

/t Dte Date Dthe io/

/cs bate jo4/c

3 ate, Toxics Program

Section, ion, Region

5 Waste,
August 23, 2002

24536

#### State v. Vastlik

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 21.1
  
                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                            GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC. 
                           (a Delaware corporation)
  
  
                                Jurisdiction of   Names Under Which
  Subsidiary                    Incorporation     Company Does Business
  ----------                    ---------------   ---------------------
  Giant Industries 
    Arizona, Inc.               Arizona           Giant Refining Company
                                                  Ciniza Pipe Line Company
                                                  Giant Transportation
                                                  Giant Service Stations
                                                  Giant Travel Center
                                                  TransWest Tank Lines
    - Giant Four Corners, 
        Inc.*                   Arizona          
    - Giant Mid-Continent,
        Inc.*                   Arizona
    - Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*   Arizona    
    - DeGuelle Oil Company*     Colorado
    - Ciniza Production 
        Company*                New Mexico   
    - Giant Stop-N-Go of 
        New Mexico, Inc.*       New Mexico
    - San Juan Refining 
        Company*                New Mexico       Phoenix Fuel Company
                                                 Mesa Fuel Company
                                                 Tucson Fuel Company
                                                 Firebird Fuel Company
                                                 PFC Lubricants Company
  Giant Exploration & 
    Production Company          Texas                 
  
  _______________
  
  *A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.
# C_2018352EN.01003602.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/36

---

Action brought on 29 June 2018 — ITSA v Commission

(Case T-396/18)

(2018/C 352/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Scanvic, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the WHO Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products adopted in Seoul on 12 November 2012, prohibiting the tobacco industry from being responsible for activities relating to the marking of tobacco products. In that regard, the applicant claims that, although the Protocol has not yet come into force, it has been agreed and signed by the European Union, which may not take measures that do not comply with it.

Furthermore, it states that Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1), on the basis on which the contested regulation in the present case was adopted, can and must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Protocol referred to, regardless of the fact that that protocol does not expressly prohibit the activities at issue from being responsible for the tobacco industry.

Finally, should such an interpretation be precluded, the Directive itself will be contrary to the Protocol and, therefore, the European Treaties.

---
18369

#### State v. Shintaku

March 18, 1997

Order No. 97-26

Remanded
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Dennis P. Calvert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.





Dated: May 17, 2010



By:

/s/ DENNIS P. CALVERTDennis P. CalvertPresident and Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




I, Charles K. Dargan II, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.





Dated: May 17, 2010



By:

/s/ CHARLES K. DARGAN IICharles K. Dargan IIChief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
February 18, 2000

22470

#### State v. Villegas

Affirmed
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our reports dated March 27, 2000 (except for Note A as to which
the date is April 5, 2000) accompanying the consolidated financial statements
and schedules included in the Annual Report of Milestone Scientific, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of
Milestone Scientific, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33376497), effective April 14,
1999.

GRANT THORNTON LLP
New York, New York
April 11, 2000
#### Audrey F. Jabri, Respondent, v Tarek Jabri, Appellant.

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) stated portions of a decision of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiFede, J.H.O.), dated January 17,1989, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated February 28, 1989, as (a) did not reopen the trial, (b) adhered to its original determination as to custody and visitation, (c) directed him to pay the principal sum of $9,200, representing arrears in child support, and (d) awarded the plaintiff wife counsel fees in the sum of $3,500.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order is held in abeyance pending the redetermination of the child support provisions contained in the parties’ judgment of divorce *(see, Jabri v Jabri,*175 AD2d 237 [decided herewith]). Mangano, P. J., Eiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.